The legal Guard Dogs of Dignity are straining at their leashes again down in Florida. You can read the next
chapter in their attack on the Pit Bill logo of Fort Lauderdale lawyers Pape & Chandler, in the Florida State Bar’s
Initial Brief to the Florida Supreme Court (Case Nos: SC04-40/SC04-41).
decision in Florida Bar v. John Pape and Marc Chandler, along with the original Bar complaint,
and P&C’s comprehensive Memorandum of Law , can be found here. The Referee and ruled that
neither the 1 (800) PITBULL number, nor P&C’s logo are deceptive or otherwise violative of the Rules
Regulating the Florida Bar; he also held that the State’s lawyer advertising rules are unconstitutional
restrictions on commercial speech as applied here by The Florida Bar.
Before you read the highlights of FBA’s case, please note that this is a b&w version of the logo in question:
As we discuss here, FBA is represented by famed appellate Tallahassee lawyer Barry Richard. But all of
Richard’s talents could not turn this sow’s ear (horse’s rear?) of a case into a winner.
Here are excerpts from their brief that make the main points argued by Richard and FBA:
The use in a lawyer’s advertisement of a picture of a spiked-collar pit bull and the telephone
number 800-PIT-BULL provides the consumer with nothing of informational value and is
designed to convey the idea that the lawyer engages in tactics that are considered unprofessional
and that are prohibited in practice. Because such tactics are prohibited, the suggestion that the
lawyer can engage in them is inherently misleading in violation of Rule 4-7.2(b)(4). Moreover, the
use of reference to a pit bull is intended to describe or characterize the lawyer’s services in violation
Rule 4-7.2(b)(3).
“tinyredcheck” There is no constitutional prohibition on regulating commercial speech that is more likely to deceive the public than inform it. The possibility of deception in using pit bulls in lawyer advertising is selfevident.
(emphasis added)
Take another look at that logo and tell me what is “self-evident” about the intent of the advertising lawyers or the effects of the image on the public. I’m not convinced that the pit bull logo injures consumers in any way. Wasting scarce bar counsel resources on this matter — and the appeal — on the other hand, surely means that more important disciplinary matters are being shortchanged.
update (Feb. 22, 2005): You can find Pape & Chandler’s Answer Brief here.
not much afternoon left–
his dog runs loose
ahead of him
letting
the dog out–
the stars in
the first snowfall
doesn’t hide it…
dog poop
mother dog
blocks with her butt…
snowball
by dagosan:
sunset tints
the cloudbank pink —
avoiding yellow snow
[Feb.5, 2005]
Speaking of lawyer ethics. take a peek at this article from February’s Washington
Lawyer, which “reviews the most popular of [website] disclaimers and discusses
the ways in which they may be featured on a law firm’s web site for maximum effect.”
(Thwarting Ethical Violations With Web Site Disclaimers, by Walter A. Effross )
My favorite passage:
These disclaimers can be taken to unusual and somewhat amusing lengths.
For instance, the terms-and-conditions page of one firm, whose site provides
a panoply of pages on its practice groups, lawyers, and publications, nonetheless
insists that the site is intended only to provide “general information to law students
and others who are considering a career at [the firm] or are interested in the firm.”
Similarly, another firm claims that “[t]his website is primarily intended for use by
law school students considering a career at our firm.”
I guess it’s up to skepticalEsq to try to bring a little balance to the story.